ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2022
Effect of Photochromic Contact Lens Wear on Indoor Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blue-Light Filters in Eye Care: A State-of-the-Art Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Wavelength Characteristics and Visual Function of Photochromic Contact Lenses in Indoor and Outdoor Conditions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo quantitatively assess visual performance and patient satisfaction during photochromic contact lens (CL) wear in an indoor environment.
methodsThis observational study comprised 82 eyes of 41 healthy subjects (mean age ± standard deviation, 21.7 ± 0.7 years) who had no ophthalmic diseases except for refractive errors at Kitasato University in 2021. We prospectively compared visual acuity, kinetic visual acuity, functional (time-dependent) visual acuity, the maintaining rate of visual acuity, the response time, contrast sensitivity function, higher-order aberrations, and patient satisfaction score for overall vision in such subjects during photochromic and non-photochromic CL wear in such an environment.
resultsThe kinetic visual acuity at 30 km/h was 0.32 ± 0.21 and 0.41 ± 0.24 in the photochromic and non-photochromic CL groups, respectively (p = 0.008). The kinetic visual acuity at 60 km/h was 0.32 ± 0.21 and 0.41 ± 0.24, respectively (p = 0.034). The functional visual acuity was 0.00 ± 0.21 and 0.05 ± 0.25, respectively (p = 0.030). The average response time was 1.19 ± 0.15 s and 1.23 ± 0.15 s, respectively (p = 0.029). The patient satisfaction score for overall visual performance was 4.22 ± 0.11 and 3.59 ± 0.68, respectively (p < 0.001). Otherwise, we found no significant differences in visual acuity, the maintaining rate, higher-order aberrations, or contrast sensitivity function (p = 0.116, p = 0.053, p = 0.371, or p = 0.943). We found no apparent complications such as ocular discomfort, superficial punctate keratitis, conjunctival injection, or infectious keratitis during the observation period.
conclusionsAccording to our experience, the photochromic CL showed good visual quality, especially in terms of kinetic and functional visual acuities and subsequent high patient satisfaction, even in an indoor environment, suggesting its viability of visual correction not only in daily activities but also in indoor sports activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.